Illinois Legislature Votes for Impeachment Efforts

Speaker Michael J. Madigan of the Illinois House, right, leaving a party caucus on Monday at which the governor was discussed.Credit
Kristen Schmid Schurter for The New York Times

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — The Illinois State House voted unanimously on Monday evening to begin efforts to impeach Rod R. Blagojevich, the Democratic governor arrested last week in a web of corruption, including, prosecutors say, efforts to make money off the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.

Michael J. Madigan, the powerful House speaker in a capital where Democrats control both the House and Senate, appointed a committee that will begin gathering evidence and testimony on Tuesday in an “abuse of power” case against Mr. Blagojevich. The lawmakers voted 113 to 0 to go forward with Mr. Madigan’s plan.

“We’re going to proceed with all due speed, but we are going to make sure that what we do is done correctly,” said Mr. Madigan, who like many others in state government has long sparred with Mr. Blagojevich and has fielded calls for Mr. Blagojevich’s impeachment long before now.

“I ask you again, governor, ‘Do the right thing,’ ” Representative Susana A. Mendoza said on the House floor, though the governor was 200 miles away, in Chicago. “Resign. And if you won’t, and you don’t, then I am certainly more than willing to proceed with impeachment proceedings.”

Mr. Blagojevich showed no sign he had noticed the uproar. He spent the day perusing bills, his spokesman, Lucio Guerrero said, and signed 11 of them, including one that increased tax credits to encourage films being made in Illinois.

“We’ve been dealing with impeachment talk for over a year,” Mr. Guerrero said. “Until they decide what they want to do, there’s very little for us to say.”

Though there have been calls from all sides of the political spectrum for Mr. Blagojevich to resign or be removed, pointed questions over how best to proceed and, perhaps more immediately, how to select Mr. Obama’s successor, have grown increasingly tense, tangled and charged with partisan rancor.

Should a special election be held for the now empty Senate seat (giving Republican candidates a chance) or should some other person — most likely Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, a Democrat — be given the appointment power, nearly guaranteeing the selection of a Democrat? Should Mr. Blagojevich be impeached by lawmakers, a rarely tested and lengthy process, or should Lisa Madigan, the attorney general and Mr. Madigan’s daughter, continue to push for the governor’s removal in the Illinois Supreme Court?

Lawmakers even squabbled Monday over the composition of the 21-member special impeachment committee, which Mr. Madigan weighted 12 to 9 in favor of Democrats. Furious Republicans insisted it should have equal representation from both parties.

Also to the dismay of Republican lawmakers, the House adjourned Monday night without even taking up the question of a special election, ending that prospect at least for now.

State Representative Tom Cross, the Republican leader, had urged his colleagues to pass legislation setting a primary election in February and a general election in April to fill the Senate seat. Republicans said they suspected Democrats were stalling on the proposal, perhaps all the way until impeachment proceedings are concluded, to allow Mr. Quinn to become governor and make the appointment.

Surprising many, Mr. Blagojevich has left open the possibility that he would sign a bill allowing a special election, which would take away his power to choose Mr. Obama’s successor. “That’s something that he’s been a supporter of, letting people decide who their elected officials are,” Mr. Guerrero said. “He just has to see the legislation.”

Even as members for the impeachment committee were being named, it was clear that few here understood precisely how the impeachment process would go forward. There is little recent precedent for it, aside from a 1997 effort to impeach James Heiple, an Illinois Supreme Court chief justice. That case ended without a final decision by lawmakers because Mr. Heiple decided not to run for re-election.

And the standards and procedures for impeachment, described in the state Constitution, are extremely broad, offering scarce guidance other than calling for a majority vote in the House, a trial in the Senate presided over by the State Supreme Court’s chief justice and, for a conviction, a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate.

“They’ll have to decide what their standard is,” said Dawn Clark Netsch, a political scientist at Northwestern University who was once a Democratic lawmaker and comptroller of Illinois. “They’re going to look to language or grounds or standards used in other states. They may be somewhat influenced by language in the U.S. Constitution, but they certainly aren’t bound by any of that.”

Some experts said the impeachment inquiry might also create problems for federal prosecutors’ criminal proceedings against Mr. Blagojevich, if witnesses are compelled to testify and are granted immunity.

“If you grant people immunity, you can really screw up investigations,” said Ronald J. Allen, a professor of law at Northwestern, pointing to the case of Oliver L. North, whose conviction in the Iran-contra affair was thrown out because of immunity granted during Congressional hearings. Professor Allen said most at risk were potential cases against people who were involved but have not yet been charged.

Randall Samborn, a spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald, declined to comment Monday on whether prosecutors would have any concern about whether impeachment proceedings in Springfield could interfere with their investigation.

Anton R. Valukas, a former United States attorney in Chicago, said Mr. Fitzgerald was likely to show a high level of deference to a legislative process that was about the people’s right to make a judgment about who should govern them.

Edward Genson, a noted Chicago-based criminal defense attorney, confirmed late Monday that he had been retained by Mr. Blagojevich.

“He’s not guilty, so we’re going to go to court,” Mr. Genson said. “We’re not agreeing to impeachment. If you read these transcripts closely, you’ll find that nobody did anything. People are just talking, and that’s not against the law.”

Mr. Genson pointed a finger at the news media, which he said had made the story more than what was by focusing on the more salacious details of the colorful and obscene criminal complaint.